In an op-ed piece on MoCo 360, Council Member Evan Glass called for more transparency in how the school system uses the money we lavish upon it—voluntarily or otherwise.
Unfortunately…the process for distributing $3 billion across the school system is not transparent.
True, but not entirely true. We have some examples of some problematic school expenditures that are entirely transparent.
Gloria McKnight and Her Six-Figure Sisters Nancy Navarro (Senior Adviser for External Affairs) and Laverne Kimball (acting chief in the Office of School Support and Well-Being) were cases of McKnight’s nepotism. Those two resigned immediately after McKnight left. If their functions are so important, why didn’t they remain? If those functions are not critical, why were they hired in the first place?
Pronouns in Tom Ford Suits As of February, MCPS racked up almost $200,000 in legal fees with a pricey law firm to defend a coercive LGBT curriculum.
Negligence in Givenchy Suits The school district paid almost $200,000 to a different but equally pricey law firm for matters pertaining to the Beidleman affair.
Embezzlement on Wheels An assistant director of the district’s Department of Transportation stole over $300,000.
These are the few outlandish, egregious scandals that have transpired in the past 14 months. The first three items were transparent while they were happening and could have been avoided.
The problem with these outcomes is there is no accountability. For example, the school board unilaterally forced LGBT on the students and parents without even trying to find consensus; the school board members should face the consequences and pay for the legal fees themselves, or purchase their own indemnification insurance. Without the veil of indemnity, school officials might be much more careful with the fiscal responsibilities they have, and obviating calls for “transparency.”
Honestly, though, these scandals, and the others transpiring at 850 Hungerford Drive and have yet to be discovered, are not the big money. The real financial burden with the schools is the excessive administrative staff. The school’s budget shows fully 20% of its expenditures go toward non-instructional functions. Would you give $3.2 billion to a charity that spends 20% of it on admin? Reducing that allocation to 15% would be an enormous relief for the taxpayers.
Mr. Glass continues:
Once the county government writes a check to the school system, it is the responsibility of the Montgomery County Board of Education to oversee the use of these funds. The council does not have the authority to target spending within the broad funding categories for programmatic priorities.
This is a sign of a leader abdicating leadership. The council has every authority, certainly a moral authority, to demand any reform it wants, high-level or micro-managed; absent those reforms, the council can withhold or reduce funding. That’s the entire point of “power of the purse.” If Mr. Glass really believes that he has no influence over the district’s operations, if he really believes that his job is to be a middle-man for MCPS, then we might as well extract the school budget entirely from the County Council and have MCPS charge us directly. In my mind, that arrangement would bring far better outcomes.
Underlying any discussion of spending reform is the Montgomery County Education Association (the teachers’ union). This highly entitled and engorged union issues candidate endorsements that are as valuable as a coronation. MCEA is opposed to any financial reforms in the school district the way Baby Boomers oppose any reforms in Social Security. In fact, the MCEA disrupted a County Council meeting to demand “full funding” for a bloated, unresponsive school system that serves neither the students nor the teachers, but does serve the union’s organizers.
Here’s the subtext. Glass won the teachers’ union’s endorsement in 2022. Would Mr. Glass do anything to endanger that endorsement for future campaigns? Will he be able to demand a reduction in the administrative burden to below 15%? We have yet to see, but I think when it comes to transparency, Mr. Glass could use a dose of it himself in his relations with the teachers’ union.
